Last Update: February 01, 2023, 04:51 IST
The SC said that the prosecutrix, who was a married woman with three children, could not be said to have acted under an alleged false promise or under a false impression while consenting to sexual intercourse with the accused. (Representational Image: Reuters/File)
In this case, the Supreme Court quashed the 10-year sentence awarded to a man and observed that there is a difference between making a false promise and breaking a promise.
The Supreme Court on Monday said that it would be foolish to treat every breach of promise to marry as false and then prosecute a person for an offense under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The court said that each case would depend on the facts proved.
A division bench of the Supreme Court made these observations while setting aside the 10-year sentence awarded to Naeem Ahmed. In this case, the prosecutrix was a married woman with three children, who preferred the accused to live as a tenant opposite her house. Both had sex and the woman gave birth to a child whose father was the accused.
The woman visited the native place of the accused in 2012 and learned that he was also married with children, but continued to live with her in separate premises. The woman and her husband divorced with mutual consent in 2014 and thereafter left their three children with him.
Later, she lodged a complaint that she had consented to sexual intercourse with the accused as he had promised to marry her but had not. The Supreme Court said that there is a difference between making a false promise and breaking a promise.
“In a case of false promise, the accused had, from the very beginning, no intention of marrying the victim and only with a view to satisfy his lust, he deceived or cheated the woman by making a false promise to marry her, whereas In a case of breach of promise, one cannot rule out the possibility that the accused may have in all seriousness made a promise to marry her, and the latter may have to face certain circumstances… which are beyond his control. be out, which prevented him from fulfilling his promise.A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi.
The court further said that a married woman with three children cannot be said to have acted under an alleged false promise or misrepresentation while consenting to sexual intercourse.
“Undisputed, she maintained such relationship with him for at least five years till the filing of the complaint in 2015. Even if the allegations made by her in her statement before the court are to be taken at their face value But even if taken as such, to treat such allegations as ‘rape’ by the appellant would be taking the matter too far. The prosecutrix, being a married woman and a mother of three children, was mature and sensible enough to take the moral or consenting to an unethical act, understand its importance and consequences,” the bench concluded.
read all latest india news Here
